[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11714 ____________________

KIMBERLY GRIPPA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RONALD RUBIN, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00457-MW-MAF ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11714 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2025 Page: 2 of 21

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11714

Before BRASHER, ED CARNES, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. BRASHER, Circuit Judge: This case raises questions of first impression about the ap- pealability of an interlocutory order denying Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges in a defamation action. Ronald Rubin filed a lawsuit that named Kimberly Grippa as a member of a crim- inal enterprise. His lawyer mailed allegedly defamatory letters to state officials, asking them to investigate this alleged criminal en- terprise and including copies of the complaint. Grippa sued Rubin for defaming her through these letters, and Rubin moved for summary judgment. He argued that the let- ters were protected by Florida’s absolute litigation privilege. In the alternative, he argued that, even if the letters were not protected by the absolute privilege, they were protected by Florida’s qualified litigation privilege. He also claimed that he could not be held vicar- iously liable for his lawyer’s letters. The district court denied Rubin’s motion for summary judg- ment on each ground, and he immediately appealed. We hold that the denial of Florida’s absolute litigation privilege is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, but we lack jurisdic- tion to consider the denial of the qualified litigation privilege or the remaining vicarious liability issue. We believe the district court cor- rectly denied the absolute litigation privilege because the letters were sent outside the litigation process and included additional statements beyond those in the complaint. Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. USCA11 Case: 23-11714 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 04/03/2025 Page: 3 of 21

23-11714 Opinion of the Court 3

I.

In March 2019, Grippa interviewed for a job in the Florida government with Rubin. Ultimately, Rubin determined that Grippa was unqualified for the position and refused to hire her. Grippa alleged that Rubin made several discriminatory statements and behaved inappropriately based on her gender during the inter- view, which she reported. Due to these reports, Rubin was subject to an internal investigation. As the investigation unfolded, Rubin sued various officials in the Florida government for orchestrating an allegedly sham com- plaint and investigation against him because he “refuse[d] to fall in line” with their criminal “enterprise.” According to the complaint, these officials rely on a “system of blackmail and intimidation” to “consolidate their political power and advance their financial inter- ests.” Whe